CESTAT Weekly Round-Up: 18 To 24 August 2024

Case Title: Commissioner Appeals – CGST & Central Excise Rajkot Versus M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd, Unit Of RSEZ Jamnagar

The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)has held that the SEZ Act exempts all duties in respect of the goods manufactured in the Special Economic Zones (SEZ).

Import Of Floodlight For World Cup On Duty Exemption, SCN To Pay Duty, On Assumptions And Presumptions: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Tamil Nadu Cricket Association Versus Commissioner of Customs

The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the customs duty exemption is allowable on the use of flood lights installed in the stadium for all matches, including the conduct of one-day international matches.

Kopiko Is A Sugar Confectionary, Classifiable Under Heading 1704: CESTAT

Case Title: Inbisco India Pvt Ltd Versus C.C.E.-Ahmedabad-ii

The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)has held that 'Kopiko (cappuccino and espresso varieties)' contains more than 74% sugar and glucose and is classifiable under heading 1704.

Service Tax Not Payable On Revenue Sharing Arrangement Between Exhibitors & Distributors Of Films: CESTAT

Case Title: Meghraj Cinema Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Mumbai – VII

The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax (CESTAT) has held that the no service tax is payable on revenue sharing arrangements between exhibitors and distributors of films.

Refund Claim Can't Be Rejected On The Basis Of Mismatch In SAD And VAT/CST: CESTAT

Case Title: Roots Multiclean Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs

The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the refund claim cannot be rejected on the basis of a mismatch between Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) and Value Added Tax (VAT).

CENVAT Credit Can't Be Denied For Belatedly Filing ER1 Returns: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. El Forge Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that under cenvat credit cannot be denied for belatedly filing ER1 Returns.

No Interest Is Payable For Intervening Period If Sufficient Balance Is Maintained In CENVAT Credit Account: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. TIL Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax

The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that if the assessee is maintaining sufficient balance in their CENVAT credit account, then they are not required to pay interest for the intervening period.

FTA Benefit Available On Import Of Clear Float Glass From Malaysia, Eligible For BCD Exemption: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Swastik Glass Traders Versus Commissioner of Customs

The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the Free Trade Area (FTA) benefit is available on the import of clear float glass (CFG) from Malaysia, and the assessee is eligible for Basic Custom Duty (BCD) exemption.

Dept. To Wait For Outcome Of DRI Investigation Before Rejecting Request For Correction Of Declared Value In Bill Of Entry: CESTAT

Case Title: Bharti Airtel Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore

The Banglore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the department would have awaited the outcome of the DRI investigation before rejecting the request for correction of the declared value in the bill of entry.

Imposing Redemption Fine Equal To Value Of Goods Is Harsh; CESTAT Directs Reduction

Case Title: M/S Daya Enterprises Versus The Commissioner Of Customs (Export) Icd, Tughlakabad, New Delhi

The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), while reducing the quantum of the redemption fine, held that imposing a redemption fine equal to the value of goods is harsh.